Archived: Royal Mencap Society - 7 Crawford Street

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. By following these principles, services can support people with learning disabilities and autism to live as ordinary a life as any other citizen. Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People's relatives told us they were confident that people were safe during their stays at the service.

Risks to people's health and well-being were identified, planned for and managed. There were sufficient competent and experienced staff to provide people with appropriate support when they needed it.

People received care from staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.

There were appropriate systems in place to ensure the safe administration of people’s medicines.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Relatives were positive about the care and support provided.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary.

Relatives knew how to make a complaint and were sure they would be listened to and have any concerns acted upon.

The registered manager, assistant manager and staff had created a warm welcoming atmosphere for people who used the service and their friends and families. There were close relations with social and healthcare professionals and the quality and safety of the service was reviewed regularly.

During the inspection we looked at respect and dignity, care, premises, staff support and quality assurance.

This is a summary of what we found, using evidence obtained via observations, speaking with staff, speaking with people who used the service and their families, and looking at records:

Is the service caring?

We saw staff interacting with people in a kind and respectful manner, taking time to observe body language and facial expression to ensure they were delivering care in accordance with people's wishes.

We saw evidence within the care records of people's individual abilities and strengths being noted and choices accommodated where possible.

We spoke with one person who used the service who told us they liked the staff and enjoyed being at the home. We spoke with a number of relatives, one of whom said, 'All the staff are really helpful. The introduction was thorough and all X's needs were considered, as well as the needs of the family'. Another person told us, 'X doesn't mind going in, he's quite happy'.

Is the service responsive?

People received a thorough assessment and induction prior to their first stay at the home. This was individually tailored to their specific needs and care was taken to ensure the person was ready for their first overnight stay.

People's mental capacity was taken into consideration with regard to decision making and meetings were held to ensure decisions were made in the person's best interests. Staff undertook regular training in this area and were encouraged to challenge any decisions made on people's behalf that they thought were unfair or discriminatory.

The service responded to the changing needs of relatives and, although bookings were generally made in advance for the year, attempts were made to accommodate changes. One relative told us, 'The staff are good, whenever I need advice they help and if I need to change dates they try to help'. Another said, 'They try to be as flexible as they can with dates'.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments were in place in the care records, along with clear guidance for staff to follow. These risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure people's needs were met safely.

The premises were clutter free and there was ample room for people with mobility difficulties to get around safely.

Appropriate safety measures were in place within the building, including fire extinguishers placed appropriately around the home. Fire drills were carried out on a 6 monthly basis and there was clear signage indicating fire exits. Staff were aware of what to do in an emergency situation.

Security checks were undertaken on a daily basis and hygiene and safety procedures followed.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with three staff members who demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

Feedback from relatives' meetings and questionnaires indicated a good level of satisfaction. Relatives were confident to offer suggestions for improvements and there was evidence that these were considered and responded to appropriately.

Is the service well-led?

Communication between management and staff was good and we were told the manager had an open door policy. Staff said they felt confident to speak with the manager if they had any issues to raise. Staff meetings were held on a regular basis and appraisals undertaken for all staff over the period of a year.

The quality assurance systems in evidence demonstrated a significant amount of monitoring, analysis and response to any shortfalls identified.

The manager of the service told us they were well supported by higher management and their systems further scrutinised to ensure consistency throughout the company.

We saw consent was sought both verbally and in writing. Staff were mindful of people's methods of communication and guidance was in place to assist them with each person's particular needs.

We looked at three care files and they contained relevant health information and were individualised and personal. We spoke with one person who used the service. They told us, 'I like it here, it's very good'. We spoke with four relatives. One commented, 'It's a place in a million for me'. Another told us 'They are very flexible in their booking system. If we have an emergency they will try to accommodate X'.

Safeguarding policies were in place. We spoke with two staff members who demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding issues and were confident to follow the guidance.

Staff were well supported by management and there was guidance for them to refer to. We spoke with two members of staff who felt communication was good and they were well supported by their manager.

There was a complaints procedure in place and the service had a number of systems for auditing quality. Results were analysed and improvements continually implemented. Efforts were made to continually consult with people who used the service and their relatives to gain their views and suggestions.

The person we spoke with who used the service told us 'The staff are nice, I like it here.' The relative with whom we spoke told us 'I'd be lost without them, they are aware of X's likes and dislikes, I don't worry about X one iota.'

We looked at a sample of people's records and found them to contain up to date and relevant medical and health information as well as records of care needs. We saw that these were person centred and individualised to incorporate people's choices and preferences.

We saw relevant policies and procedures around cleanliness and infection control. We saw that the home was maintained to a high standard of hygiene and cleanliness and that food hygiene was taken seriously.

We saw evidence of robust recruitment and induction procedures and we spoke with two members of staff who told us that training and development was ongoing. The staff with whom we spoke felt they were well supported in their employment.

We saw that there was a complaints procedure in place and noted that complaints, comments and concerns were taken seriously and followed up appropriately.